The fall of the Alamo [Archive]

a_very_ex_STAB

03-28-2007, 08:34 AM

Theres quite a bit of questioning over the fate of David Crockett (Davy is a hollywood creation). They found letters that are dated that put him hundreds of miles away from the events that happened in the Alamo.

Just a bunch of Mexican citizens who turned traitors and lead an insurgency and got put down by the Mexican army.

Well they weren't all Mexicans. IIRC from when I visited the Alamo and looked at the list of names of the dead I was struck by how many had been born in the British Isles or in Europe.

California Joe

03-28-2007, 09:13 AM

Very few were actually indigenous to Mexico. True, they were naturalized Mexican citizens.

Ghelp

03-28-2007, 09:28 AM

Indians usually didin't fight.Both sides had alot of Europeans.

[WDW]Megaraptor

03-28-2007, 09:28 AM

They also didn't get put down by the Mexican Army, seeing as how they won the war and captured Santa Anna...

Panzer Joe

03-28-2007, 01:00 PM

California Joe

03-28-2007, 01:11 PM

The Alamo held for 12 days I believe. The final assault may have been 1 1/2 hours but the garrison would have been substantially weakened by bombardment and previous assaults by that time. Quite a few of the defenders would have had flintlock longrifles which are definitely capable of reaching out and touching someone, in the hands of a rifleman. There was certainly hand to hand combat at the end. Unlike the Disney version I've never seen any evidence that Jim Bowie carried a Nock(sp?) Volley gun.

Hecatonchiros

03-28-2007, 02:14 PM

There was certainly hand to hand combat at the end. Unlike the Disney version I've never seen any evidence that Jim Bowie carried a Nock(sp?) Volley gun.

Wasn´t he pretty much dying of tuberculosis when the Alamo fell? In the 2004 film the mexicans kill him in his bed IIRC, but I can´t seem to remember how he died in the 1960 version.

kawaiku

03-28-2007, 02:27 PM

Wasn´t he pretty much dying of tuberculosis when the Alamo fell? In the 2004 film the mexicans kill him in his bed IIRC, but I can´t seem to remember how he died in the 1960 version.
i'm not sure about the version, but I've seen one where he takes about about 4-6 Mexicans before being overwhelmed.

oldsoak

03-28-2007, 04:32 PM

Well they weren't all Mexicans. IIRC from when I visited the Alamo and looked at the list of names of the dead I was struck by how many had been born in the British Isles or in Europe.

The tradition of going abroad and getting into fights with the locals is a long established one amongst British holidaymakers it seems. :-P

BearInBunnySuit

03-28-2007, 05:02 PM

I lived in Texas as a kid for about a year and always thought "Remember the Alamo" was an allusion to a great military victory. Only after I had read Texas by Michener years later did I learn what a tragedy it was. :oops:

that_one_guy

03-29-2007, 11:22 PM

Just a bunch of Mexican citizens who turned traitors and lead an insurgency and got put down by the Mexican army.

those are fighting words there, buddy.

Engine Mech

03-29-2007, 11:30 PM

The Alamo was the start of the great american land grab where they ended up stealing half of Mexico. Mexicans used british Baker rifles.

dedbunniez

03-29-2007, 11:34 PM

Originally Posted by Limeyfellow View Post
Just a bunch of Mexican citizens who turned traitors and lead an insurgency and got put down by the Mexican army.

Them be fightin words...

Miles.

03-30-2007, 12:54 AM

I'mOnlyHalfPolish

03-30-2007, 03:24 PM

The Mexicans required the immigrants to convert to Roman Catholicism, i.e. paying taxes to the government/church for your salvation in the afterlife.

High taxes and an incredible Constitution that was rewritten every other year didn't exactly help the situation.

The Mexicans should have fought harder.

hate to say it but slavery was also illegal in mexico and as such texas was a mexican territory where it was outlawed...ouch

anyhow i guess technically they were mexican citizens, but there were several people of mexican decent that fought with the texans but i believe most were american/european settlers...

haha we had to take texas history in grade school, its a state requirement and i cant even remember how it all went down

gadzook

03-30-2007, 11:41 PM

I wish the Mexicans would stop trying to rewrite history. Mexicans wanted nothing of Texas in the 1830's. None of them wanted to colonize Texas under Spanish rule so the Spanish allowed European and American settlers to purchase land grants in Texas from the Spanish crown. Things were going great, the European settlers made much of East and Central Texas liveable. When the Mexicans took over in 1824 and established a dictatorship, the Mexicans came down harshly on white skinned Texicans. So harsh that one could call it genocide.

The Mexican flag only flew over what is now Texas for less than 12 years. During that time, the Mexican government never built a single road, bridge, public works project, defended it's borders from intruders or established any towns, cities or settlements. The Mexicans claim the Spanish history of missions as their own and this is false.

The Mexican government did an awful job of managing Texas. Taxation without representation, corruption, religious intolerance, summary executions, false imprisonement, looting, rape, state sponsored murder. These were the things that drove Texicans to revolt. You would do the same.

The slave issue: Since someone else brought it up. Texicans were a poor people. Many had failed professionally elsewhere, some were on the run from the law, some were penniless immigrants. Only a handful, maybe just a few actually had slaves. I'm thinking you could count Texican slaveowners in the 1830's on one hand. Food was just too scarce and life to harsh to feed, clothe and take care of slaves. It remained that way even until the 1860's when Texas narrowly entered the Civil War. Many Texans wanted to stay neutral and out of the fight all together since so few had any interest in states rights issues.

I hope this clears some issues up. There was never any "land grab" from Mexico by Texans. Let's just stop that myth.

aj-0311

03-31-2007, 12:18 PM

"Taxation without representation, corruption, religious intolerance, summary executions, false imprisonement, looting, rape, state sponsored murder."

Add human exportation and what's different between then and now?

Felix U. Gómez

04-04-2007, 02:29 AM

Thanks to all for replys, I read that the mexicans lost over 6oo troops killed, surely a indication of the violent nature of the battle, which was only about 1 and a half hours long, and given the nature of weapons of the period, would I be correct in saying that Aa lot of the killing would have been up close and hand to hand ?
Another question- would there have been european volunteers or mercenaries in the ranks of the Mexican Army ?

Many of the Mexican casualties were the result of friendly fire. The battle was fought in the dark, in the early hours of the morning. It took them a while to scale the walls, and in the dark were being fired upon by their own troops as well as the enemy. Many of the troops were new recruits who had never fired a gun or much less been in combat. Santa Ana wasn't a very good general (he actually wasn't good at much anything, except for seducing a young nation). Many of the officers with the Mexican army, some of which were much more capable, recommended that Santa Ana wait for the largest pieces in the Mexican artillery train to catch up with the army. With these two heavier guns the walls could have been reduced to rubble in a matter of hours. Santa Ana considered himself the Napoleon of the West, and therefore he desired a "glorious assault". It was a pitty for Mexico that he did not lead it himself. In part I think that he chose the assault over waiting a few days because he was being eclipsed by a more capable subbordinate officer who was leading another column of the Mexican army that was succesfully destroying all the Texans' southern defenses, General Jose Urrea. Most people ignore the fact that the Mexicans actually won most of the battles leading up to the last one, the Battle of San Jacinto.
As for your question of wether Mexico celebrates the "victory" at the Alamo. The answer is no. Mexicans aren't that dumb, it was not a victory worthy of conmemoration, we have much better ones. It was more like a tragedy for both sides. The only battles celebrated or conmemorated in Mexico every year are the Battle of Chapultepec (our Alamo), and the Battle of Puebla (a victory by a smaller Mexican army over the invading French army).
Also, there were a few foreigners in the ranks of the Mexican army at the time, like Italian born General Vicente Filisola, capable, but mistrusted because of his foreign birth.
In my opinion as a Mexican, US movies about the event are slanted and do not present a fair portrait though the newest one claimed it did. Unfortunately I know of no Mexican movie ever being made on the subject.

Engine Mech

04-04-2007, 05:09 AM

Sounds like texans were innocent victims caught between corrupt mexicans and greedy american politicians. So who had the idea to enlarge americas borders at the expense of the mexicans.

Minardiau

04-04-2007, 06:41 AM

The US government did an awful job of managing the entire western area of the continent. Taxation without representation, corruption, religious intolerance, summary executions, false imprisonement, looting, rape, state sponsored murder. These were the things that drove Texicans to revolt. You would do the same.

Fixed.

As for Mexico not doing anything in Texas. You may want to look at every other country in the world at the time. Apart from the established naval establishments in Europe. Infrastructure across the world was in a poor state. Europe was still using roads made by the Romans, education was till only taught to a rudimentary level and the Japanese still had not reached the gunpowder age.

The industrial revolution took many generations to enter different societies. And I argue that if it was not for American intervention in the Americas then the Americas would be vastly better off today then what has transpired.

the_recruit

04-04-2007, 10:59 AM

wow, this is a good thread, I love my history.

ag05

04-04-2007, 12:40 PM

The industrial revolution took many generations to enter different societies. And I argue that if it was not for American intervention in the Americas then the Americas would be vastly better off today then what has transpired.

While you may be right on some level, I have to say that as a Texan, I'm glad they intervened. I'm betting that most citizens of the SW United States would agree.

Engine Mech

04-04-2007, 09:17 PM

Sounds too much like imperialistic intervention to me. We are better than them, lets invade, steal their land and make ourselves rich.

gadzook

04-07-2007, 12:10 AM

Sounds too much like imperialistic intervention to me. We are better than them, lets invade, steal their land and make ourselves rich.

What are you talking about?

Texicans were given Spanish Land Grants by the King of Spain and paid for them. They were legally deeded property. Santa Ana, dictator, wanted none of that and tried to remove Texicans from their land, killing their livestock, murdering their families, burning their crops and homes. Mexico never had control over Texas. The Mexican Army at the time was the largest, most modern and well equipped military in the Americas. It was larger than all other militaries in the Americas combined. They were soundly beaten by a force(San Jacinto) much smaller than their own do to unprofessionalism.

Texas was an independent country for almost a decade before becoming part of the United States of America. It was legally recognized by many European countries.

I seriously wonder what the hell is going on with this revisionist history of late thinking that the Texans or Americans some how "stole" land from Mexico. Any thoughts along those lines are completely false.

gadzook

04-07-2007, 12:12 AM

Sounds like texans were innocent victims caught between corrupt mexicans and greedy american politicians. So who had the idea to enlarge americas borders at the expense of the mexicans.

What Mexicans?

Texans fought for themselves, it was not a proxy war.

You need to pick up a book or two on Texas History.

gadzook

04-07-2007, 12:21 AM

Fixed.

As for Mexico not doing anything in Texas. You may want to look at every other country in the world at the time. Apart from the established naval establishments in Europe. Infrastructure across the world was in a poor state. Europe was still using roads made by the Romans, education was till only taught to a rudimentary level and the Japanese still had not reached the gunpowder age.

Huh?

Just like today, Mexico is a leech. Taking credit for things they never did.

Spain had developed many small Indian Villages and outposts into small cities by the 1600's. San Antonio, Goliad, Nacogdoches, Santa Fe, El Paso, the list goes on and on. El Camino Real(The Royal Road) stretched from El Paso to Louisiana and was a vital trade route. It is still used today as Highway 21. So much of what Spain did is still around in Texas today. Laws governing marriage, divorce, birth, death, taxes, property rights, water rights, probate, tort law are all based on Spanish law. Mexico contributed nothing to that. Not one single bit. Mexico cannot point to anything in Texas history that they can take credit for other than the Texas Revolution and border incursions.

The silliness on this messageboard by certain Mexicans to attempt to rewrite history must stop. It's false and racist.

ElHombre

04-08-2007, 11:20 PM

I am familier with the Hollywood version of the fall of the Alamo in 1836, in which the defenders fight to the last man,but I read somewhere before (cant remember where) that the mexicans actually took prisoners, including Davy Crockett, and subsequently executed them shortly afterwards.
Can anybody provide more information to this claim.
I find the story of the Alamo a very interesting piece of military history.

The book you want to read is Texian Iliad (http://www.amazon.com/Texian-Iliad-Military-History-Revolution/dp/0292731027/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-4830975-5744027?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176088224&sr=1-1) by Stephen L. Hardin. It's the standard by which all other books on the subject are measured. Also, there's Eighteen Minutes (http://www.amazon.com/Eighteen-Minutes-Jacinto-Independence-Campaign/dp/1589070097/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-3937811-1826453?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176088297&sr=1-1) and Sacrificed at the Alamo (http://www.amazon.com/Sacrificed-Alamo-Tragedy-Revolution-Military/dp/1880510804/ref=sr_1_1/102-0111293-3866561?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176088378&sr=1-1).

As far as the part about prisoners, it's most likely true. Some prisoners were likely taken at the end of the fight (and Crockett was supposed to be one of them), but Santa Anna ordered them slaughtered with the rest.

Texas was lucky. There were two other rebellions that had occured just prior to the Texians rising up against the Centralista gov't. The Centralista's policies were the primary cause of all the revolts. Texas was the only one they lost. Not coincidentally, it was also the one furthest away from Mexico City.

mohica

04-10-2007, 09:12 AM

Sounds like texans were innocent victims caught between corrupt mexicans and greedy american politicians. So who had the idea to enlarge americas borders at the expense of the mexicans.

Get off that crap will ya? If anything, it was Apache land. Apaches had rightfully been attacking and killing Mexicans for years for "taking" Apache land.

Mastermind

04-10-2007, 03:07 PM

Very recent finds, including the Mexican diaries and notes on the battles have created a stir of controversy because they tend to shadow the "believed" events as romanticised by the movie makers and many proud Texas historians. It wasa ruthless, bloody, vicious, muddy, smoky, fight to the death for what men believed in deeply. Both sides committed atrocities...these were very hard men who lived in very harsh times. They were cunning, equally endowed with military experience. As in most wars, both sides made silly mistakes in the "fog of battle". Their war efforts (as we know them) are both romantic and absurd by our "standards"...and now, many are trying to re-write history to enhance their modern agendas. I'm afraid the truth of the Amamo will never be totally known in all this...but, one thing is certain, Texas and the entire south west are now and forever part of the United States of America because of it.

Bandeirante

04-10-2007, 08:28 PM

What are you talking about?

The Mexican Army at the time was the largest, most modern and well equipped military in the Americas. It was larger than all other militaries in the Americas combined. They were soundly beaten by a force(San Jacinto) much smaller than their own do to unprofessionalism.

Mexico was not used to colonial wars in the old colonial times.
South America was always at war in the colonial times. The Portuguese and Spanish Empires were almost always fighting each other. They developed a strong military organization and armies. The colonial battles in South America were far bigger than in North America. Just compare the battles in terms of numbers and armaments.

What you call San Jacinto Battle, 21-apr-1836 would be a minor skirmish in South America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_San_Jacinto
About 1400 Mexicans and 800 Houston-Texans. Mexicans lost 630 killed, 208 wounded, 730 capt. Texans only lost 9 killed and 26 wounded. Absolutely unbelievable ! Santa Anna was a complete idiot.
Since the 17th Century Brazil could organize armies of 4.000 strong that would defeat any European army in South America, as it did happen in places like Guararapes. In the 19th Century any big South American country could assemble an army of more than 40.000 soldiers that would easily defeat any foreign army in South America.
United States was lucky to face an energumeno like Santa Anna. The Mexicans are good individual soldiers but they lacked an organized leadership. Even Paraguay would easily defeat any North American Army in South America in the 19th Century. Argentina defeated the British in Buenos Aires. That's because we can understand why a poor country like Vietnam also defeated the foreign aggression in their country in the 20Th Century. :bash:

mohica

04-10-2007, 08:51 PM

Argentina defeated the British in Buenos Aires. That's because we can understand why a poor country like Vietnam also defeated the foreign aggression in their country in the 20Th Century. :bash:

Yeah, and the British kicked the crap out of Argentina in the Falklands, so what is your point?

Check your history hombre. The Communist North Vietanamese did not defeat foreign aggression. WTF? The US kicked the crap out of the commies on the battlefield with one hand tied behind our back. It was the commie liberal pukes in this country and others that lost a polictcal war.

Whatever you do, don't come on this site talking about foreign (read American) aggression. Take is somewhere else.

Bandeirante

04-10-2007, 09:05 PM

Felix U. Gómez

04-10-2007, 09:22 PM

Get off that crap will ya? If anything, it was Apache land. Apaches had rightfully been attacking and killing Mexicans for years for "taking" Apache land.

Books are our amigos mohica. It wouldn't kill you to read one. They are a much better alternative to inventing your own version of history. There were many native american indians tribes that lived in Texas, not only Apaches. Apaches were more commonly found in far West Texas, not in any other parts of Texas. They were also found in New Mexico, Arizona, Chihuahua and Sonora. There were several different and distinct groups of Apaches. They never developed the concept of the modern "nation state". You will find no official records of the period in which someone will say that Texas belonged to the indians. Every modern nation state in Europe and the Americas recognized Texas as belonging to Mexico at the time. If you find a document disproving this, please feel free to let us know the source.
http://www.lsjunction.com/places/indians.htm

mohica

04-10-2007, 09:56 PM

Falklands or Malvinas is not in the Continent. It was an air-naval battle. US helped the British otherwise they wouldn't defeat the Argentine Dictatorship there. In Continental South America they would be defeated. Vietnam is in the past. US lost. The United States Embassy was already taken in 1975. Mind Iraq-Iran-Afghanistan now because you should be worried there now ! Mind the gap !

US helped the British, hmmm. You just sound anit-American. The British kicked the crap out of Argentina, but is is in the past, right?

Again, learn a bit of history pal. Too much embibing at Ipanema is clouding your version of what actually happened. It is popular among the anti-American crowd which you obviously fall into that group to hang their hat on the Viet Nam debacle. It is also apparent with that group they are relatively ignorant of the nuances of the war. You can't point to one major battle that was lost by Amerian forces. In fact, in the totality of the war, you can't point to any battle that was lost by the American forces.

Books are our amigos mohica. It wouldn't kill you to read one. They are a much better alternative to inventing your own version of history. There were many native american indians tribes that lived in Texas, not only Apaches. Apaches were more commonly found in far West Texas, not in any other parts of Texas. They were also found in New Mexico, Arizona, Chihuahua and Sonora. There were several different and distinct groups of Apaches. They never developed the concept of the modern "nation state". You will find no official records of the period in which someone will say that Texas belonged to the indians. Every modern nation state in Europe and the Americas recognized Texas as belonging to Mexico at the time. If you find a document disproving this, please feel free to let us know the source.
http://www.lsjunction.com/places/indians.htm

You know Felix, who gives a rat's ass what official records state. Go ask the Apache nation who "owned" Texas. Of course, the American Indian isn't "smart" enough to develop the concept of the modern "nation state". MIght want to check with the Sioux on that one. Perhaps you can find the information in a book, amigo.

ag05

04-10-2007, 10:21 PM

I think the Comanches might take issue with any claim by the Apaches (or anyone for that matter) regarding ownership of Texas. West Texas certainly belonged to the Apaches, but not the whole territory known as Texas.

Either way, Texas is now and will, for the very long term, be sovereign territory of the USA.

[WDW]Megaraptor

04-10-2007, 10:45 PM

They never developed the concept of the modern "nation state". You will find no official records of the period in which someone will say that Texas belonged to the indians.

Yes, that's because the "modern nations" of that time were run by white supremeracists who didn't think those "dirty indians" (or Africans, or Aboriginal Australians) were people worth being allowed their own country.

mohica

04-10-2007, 10:46 PM

You are correct, the Comanche also laid claim to portions of what is now Texas. That just reinforces my point, it was American Indian territory regardless of what 'official' records say. Heck, the whole damn country was Indian territory.

mohica

04-10-2007, 11:28 PM

Megaraptor;2427486']Yes, that's because the "modern nations" of that time were run by white supremeracists who didn't think those "dirty indians" (or Africans, or Aboriginal Australians) were people worth being allowed their own country.

Dude, take another sip of Kool-Aid. White supremacists? You poor misguided bitter man.

Felix U. Gómez

04-11-2007, 12:55 AM

You know Felix, who gives a rat's ass what official records state. Go ask the Apache nation who "owned" Texas. Of course, the American Indian isn't "smart" enough to develop the concept of the modern "nation state". MIght want to check with the Sioux on that one. Perhaps you can find the information in a book, amigo.

You might also want to get a book on reading comprehension while you're at it amiguito. I never said American indians in general were incapable of developing the concept of nation state (prove that I did or shut up). I said Apaches had not developed the concept of nation state. Other Native Americans, such as the Mexica, the Maya, the Toltec, the Zapotec, and the Incas, all demonstrated that they were more than capable of developing the concept. The Apaches on the other hand were several different groups (at times fighting each other) of mostly nomadic peoples whose way of life and the territories that they ranged and raided was transformed by the Spanish introduction of the horse. During the Spanish colonial period and latter the Mexican period in what is today the US southwest and the Mexican north, they characterized themselves for being a nuisance. They were a threat to small setlements, remote ranches, and lonely travelers. The Spanish first combated them and latter managed to buy them off by making them settle next to presidios and missions in exchange for food and supplies. The Mexicans, short on cash, first told them to work for a living, and when the Apaches revolted, decided to combat them, at times hiring Apache hunters sometimes of ill repute, such as the American Kirker. Anyway, the Apaches never owned Texas, at least not the Texas that we know today.
P.S. The Comanches were, for a longer period, a much bigger threat to Mexicans than the Apache ever were. Also, Col. Joaquin Terrazas, literaly put an end to Apache raids in Mexico at the Battle of Tres Castillos. After that, Apaches never again posed a major problem in Mexico.

[WDW]Megaraptor

04-11-2007, 12:59 PM

Dude, take another sip of Kool-Aid. White supremacists? You poor misguided bitter man.

Why do you think Europeans thought it was their duty to colonize the rest of the world?

Mastermind

04-11-2007, 02:02 PM

hUh? Of course, seeking gold and fame and fortune had absolutely nothing to do with it...nor did seeking freedom to practice their religions without state control...they were obviously out to enslave all the unknown non-white races of the flat earth.

Of course, that is the petty, "poor-me-I'm-so-oppressed-by-the-evil-white-man-of-1400-to-1864-AD-and-need-some-lame-excuse-for-my-personal-failures" attitude. MM

[WDW]Megaraptor

04-11-2007, 03:01 PM

Dragunov

04-11-2007, 04:01 PM

On thing is for sure, The Mexican-American war is till these days, the War in which the Americans suffered the greatest number of deaths in history.

1 kill for every 3 combants.

With the fact that the ''Mexican army'' of those days was not well organized and did not have competent officers. Santa Anna was an example, and not procisely the worst.

Greetings.

[WDW]Megaraptor

04-11-2007, 04:49 PM

On thing is for sure, The Mexican-American war is till these days, the War in which the Americans suffered the greatest number of deaths in history.

1 kill for every 3 combants.

stats (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html)

Mexican War:
Number served: 78,718
Battle deaths: 1,733
Non-combat deaths: 11,550
Wounded: 4,152

Although 16% of those serving died, only 2% of those serving were killed in combat. No where close to "one kill for every 3 combatants."

Compare this to a 6.5% chance of being killed in action in the American Civil War.

Mastermind

04-11-2007, 04:50 PM

Megaraptor;2428731']LOLZ...

Racism was prevalent in western culture for hundreds of years.

That doesn't mean it was the only motivation anyone had to do anything, or that everyone was a racist.

Depending on your definition of a "racist" whether it be a loose or a rigid definition, everyone is a racists to some degree or another...and that includes our most "supposedly enlightened" friends.

mohica

04-11-2007, 05:56 PM

Megaraptor;2428973']stats (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html)

Mexican War:
Number served: 78,718
Battle deaths: 1,733
Non-combat deaths: 11,550
Wounded: 4,152

Although 16% of those serving died, only 2% of those serving were killed in combat. No where close to "one kill for every 3 combatants."

Compare this to a 6.5% chance of being killed in action in the American Civil War.

That is because in the American Civil War, they were some tough mother####### on boths sides of the fence.

All there is left to say, "Remember the Alamo !!"

[WDW]Megaraptor

04-11-2007, 06:01 PM

Depending on your definition of a "racist" whether it be a loose or a rigid definition, everyone is a racists to some degree or another...and that includes our most "supposedly enlightened" friends.

Yeah but when you decide the locals aren't worth treating as equals, that's when you cross the line from predjudice to outright racism.

Felix U. Gómez

04-11-2007, 09:57 PM

gadzook

04-11-2007, 11:19 PM

Actually most deaths in the Mexican War were due to disease.

I find this thread interesting because one side of my family is Jicarilla Apache. Our homeland is north of Santa Fe near Taos.

Native Americans had different home ranges in Texas before Europeans showed up. The Caddo Nation owned everything from I-35 east, down to what is now Huntsville or so. The Wichita controlled what is now the I-35 corridor down to Waco and north into Kansas. Karankawa and Coahuiltecan were along the coast. Jumano ranged in all of West Texas. Tonkawa in Central Texas.

After Europeans settled, everything changed when the horse showed up. The Comanches who are widely regarded as the most worthless pre-European nation became one of the most powerful due to their absolute warlike capacity for killing. They kicked and killed the Jumano out of West Texas. Comanches only had a large home range for about half a century, 50 years.

Karankawa and Coahuiltecan were kidnapped and taken as slaves by the French and Spanish. Most died of flu, mumps, chicken pox.

The actual European historic record of Indian Tribes in Texas is pretty much the entire record of what Indians did in Texas. Prior to the horse and some European inventions brought to the new worl such as the wheel, Indians dod not move around much.

The Caddo were the most advanced but put most of their history back into the Deep South, as they were considered Mississippian.

It is a myth to assume that killing the Comanche of Central and West Texas was a bad thing. The Comanche could never really lay claim to their homeland as their own. The were a war minded nomadic group who focused 100% of their energy on raiding, killing and stealing. It was their religion. The entire reign of the Comanche can be bookended within about 100 years.

Mastermind

04-12-2007, 04:57 PM

Sounds like you're trying to defend the concept.
I do not flinch from it...I am human...thus I am a racist. Anyone who will deny they are a racist, I can how they are a racist if they were to go on a trip with me. We all are tuned to our own race....we don't have to energetically hate others for their skin color alone to be a racist. Racisim can be worse if it is sinister and covert, sugar coated with false sympathy and handouts, rather than sinister and overt like the KKK is. Some of the worlds worst racists are the people we consider "victims" of racisim rather than progenitors of it. Quite often, people who suffer the most from racists are those who share the same color as the racists abusing them.

Felix U. Gómez

04-13-2007, 02:12 AM

I do not flinch from it...I am human...thus I am a racist. Anyone who will deny they are a racist, I can how they are a racist if they were to go on a trip with me. We all are tuned to our own race....we don't have to energetically hate others for their skin color alone to be a racist. Racisim can be worse if it is sinister and covert, sugar coated with false sympathy and handouts, rather than sinister and overt like the KKK is. Some of the worlds worst racists are the people we consider "victims" of racisim rather than progenitors of it. Quite often, people who suffer the most from racists are those who share the same color as the racists abusing them.

Well, at least you have the balls to admit it. I for one am not a racist. I do not buy your excuse. A racist is one that believes that one race is inherently better than another. I do not accept that, no way and no how. I believe that people are a product of their environment and of the opportunities that life gives them, not of their race. Given the right opportunities in life and raised by good loving parents, anyone can be succesful. Also, I do not believe that you would call someone that is abusing members of his own race a racist, there are plenty of other labels for people like that, it just depends on what it is that they are doing.

pedro_rafael

04-13-2007, 03:42 AM

Might be interesting to note that Peru couldn't help Mexico at the time of the Alamo because we either were at Civil War or distracted by our neighbours. Helping our once mirror Viceroyalty may had been aproppriate.

But, Peru later offered to send an expeditionary force ~6,000 (some sources say ~12,000 troops) seasoned and well armed troops to help Mexico fight the French. We did lend them money though.

Peru also lend Central American countries money to fight filibusters, and also captured North American ships carrying illegal extracted guano.

Regards,

mohica

04-13-2007, 09:58 AM

It is a myth to assume that killing the Comanche of Central and West Texas was a bad thing. The Comanche could never really lay claim to their homeland as their own. The were a war minded nomadic group who focused 100% of their energy on raiding, killing and stealing. It was their religion. The entire reign of the Comanche can be bookended within about 100 years.

Uhhhhhhh, yeah. So, it was a good thing to kill Comanche. They couldn't claim their homeland as theirs. They worshiped killing. Wow.

I believe that people are a product of their environment and of the opportunities that life gives them, not of their race. Given the right opportunities in life and raised by good loving parents, anyone can be succesful. Also, I do not believe that you would call someone that is abusing members of his own race a racist, there are plenty of other labels for people like that, it just depends on what it is that they are doing.

Give, give, give. So that is how it is Felix. You are given opportunities. The only way to be successful is to be given a start. The concept of a little ingenuity and work making it happen for yourself doesn't even enter your thought process. Not suprising.

By the way, what are "plenty of other labels for people like that"? Inquiring minds want to know.

[WDW]Megaraptor

04-13-2007, 12:27 PM

Well, at least you have the balls to admit it. I for one am not a racist. I do not buy your excuse. A racist is one that believes that one race is inherently better than another.

I think a better way to put it is that we all have predjudices, but some people's predjudices develop into racism.

Felix U. Gómez

04-14-2007, 11:19 AM

Megaraptor;2433259']I think a better way to put it is that we all have predjudices, but some people's predjudices develop into racism.

Oh, I agree with you. But, the key, is to recognize that prejudices are for the most part bad because they are judgements that you make about someone or something without actually knowing all the facts. For example, if I decide that all the people of a particular race or nationality are greedy because of my own experience (or someone else's even) with a couple of members of said group... well, that is a prejudice, and it is also being unfair, because I can't possibly categorize a whole race or nationality based on such a small sample. Even if I had a large sample, it would be generalizing. The key is to be able to identify your own prejudices and put them aside as such. I think that there are good and bad individuals everywhere. Intelligence, stupidity, greed, generosity, and other traits are universal of the human race.

steelfury

04-25-2007, 02:57 AM

Well like everything its all about point of view. My family is mixed mexican and spainish, they have been in Tx. for at least a Hundred Years. While they celebrate their racial heritage they still always will side with texas and the Us when it comes to what they celebrate.

Dont forget that many mexicans were oppressed and killed by Santa Anna and many more fought against him in Mexico as well as Texas. Most chose not to in Texas when he invaded because they did not want to be on the losing side..out of fear. Hell almost 20,000 Mexicans in Texas served in the Texas army at the time of the US civil War..part of history that is never talked about.

My Grandparents have 3 flags flying at their House..The Us Flag, The Texas flag and the Us armed forces flag.

BTW the latest alamo movie is the closet to what happened from all the books i have read. Maybe not the total truth but the closest so far.

MBTex

05-08-2007, 05:47 PM

The book you want to read is Texian Iliad (http://www.amazon.com/Texian-Iliad-Military-History-Revolution/dp/0292731027/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-4830975-5744027?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176088224&sr=1-1) by Stephen L. Hardin. It's the standard by which all other books on the subject are measured. Also, there's Eighteen Minutes (http://www.amazon.com/Eighteen-Minutes-Jacinto-Independence-Campaign/dp/1589070097/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-3937811-1826453?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176088297&sr=1-1) and Sacrificed at the Alamo (http://www.amazon.com/Sacrificed-Alamo-Tragedy-Revolution-Military/dp/1880510804/ref=sr_1_1/102-0111293-3866561?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176088378&sr=1-1).

As far as the part about prisoners, it's most likely true. Some prisoners were likely taken at the end of the fight (and Crockett was supposed to be one of them), but Santa Anna ordered them slaughtered with the rest.

Texas was lucky. There were two other rebellions that had occured just prior to the Texians rising up against the Centralista gov't. The Centralista's policies were the primary cause of all the revolts. Texas was the only one they lost. Not coincidentally, it was also the one furthest away from Mexico City.

Just finished Texian Iliad. Thanks for the suggestion..